Join the crusade against the HSUS + Pass it forward

HSUS Credibility Sinking,Here’s Proof…Anti-Pet laws
January 8, 2009 ·

Some think that we are ranting about HSUS but let’s be realistic?

Let’s look at just ONE bad ordinance that HSUS *helped* draft…..they started in 2005 and ordinance went up 2006, lawsuit filed in 2007……believe me— HSUS does this type of thing regularly but also attempts to make state laws as well……….normally we don’t spend time to hand type+ copy lawsuit excerpts, so everyone can see them. (We normally do not give out entire PDF copies from the courts)..

..But I decided to spend the time, just to prove what we are saying, which has been known for years— to get people to understand that ”just telling people the truth”— doesn’t get results. We actually have to get people mad to become involved.

Most people just figure who cares, someone else will fight the battle!

Well, WE ARE fighting the battle just about every day, because in order to overcome the media manipulation of HSUS (multi millions of media $$) one cannot just say ‘Hey–that’s not true.’ It takes getting people mad, and mad enough to realize what is happening.

Mad enough to forward the Crusade Against HSUS+Pass It Forward, to everyone possible—because HSUS has all the $$$ but we have most of the PEOPLE who care, and want to stand up for their rights.

HSUS misleads the public/pet owners. This shows clearly that HSUS has no love for pets or pet owners!

HSUS *helped* the Louisville Metro Animal Services (MAS) devise a 100 page so-called dog ordinance law, and it has been admitted that HSUS Kentucky Director gave MAS+the Council access to HSUS “studies” and “data” re dangerous dogs. HSUS director made recommendations to the Council. We are fairly sure HSUS did a lot more than just recommend…………as HSUS has Directors in many states, and multiple states have attempted to enact similar laws concurrently.

————————————————————————————————————–

* [At this juncture it should be recalled, it has been HSUS which has helped do SWAT team raids, help kill off dogs over a weekend while Courts are not open, where in MANY cases, owners are found not guilty of any criminal charges (but all the dogs were already killed); HSUS helps raid kennels of smaller breed dogs even when dogs are not abused, yet helps get all dogs seized/sold starting the next week by working with groups like Best Friends Animal Society, and local "law enforcement"; HSUS goes around the country trying to implement "forfeiture" legislation (denied in CA +TN) where it would end up benefitting HSUS + tending to create police corruption; and HSUS advocatesin most of the states that Obama carried, for altering all pets or 'MSN', such as in California AB1634, defeated after 1.5 years of public outrage+opposition, as shown on this blog; HSUS advocates for excessive anti-pet dog/cat breeder restrictions across the United States; HSUS works with other AR groups like Best Friends and Last Chance for Animals to help close down legal businesses; HSUS spends thousands --like over $400,000 --- to manipulate different church groups into buying into their misleading campaigns by calling it compassion; HSUS helps set up other draconian laws like the one at hand here, which is admitted by the Metro Animal Services in the case below....and this is just the TIP of the iceberg known as HSUS-- the Political-conglomerate animal extremist]

————————————————————————————————-

con’t……..
Metro Animal Services (MAS) submitted to the Federal Court,
…..that HSUS’ role in the litigation is “but an extension of the role it has undertaken”, and substantially responsible for assisting Council…….. in pursuing a “comprehensive” approach. HSUS submitted its own brief twice, and was twice denied by the Court; HSUS’ brief was NOT allowed over objection, to be admitted.

HSUS is not even a party to the lawsuit but has a habit of filing amicus briefs. HSUS wanted to submit its own amicus brief to help defend Metro animal Services–since HSUS “helped” draft the law!

Main reason for HSUS brief being denied TWICE?

As stated by Plaintiffs, the HSUS brief was “an improper and thinly-disguised attempt to make HSUS a party to the lawsuit without having met the requirements of Rule 24 for intervention as a matter of right“;
in addition, a member of HSUS’ law firm had previously represented the Plaintiff(Louisville Kennel Club) through the legislative process leading up to the enactment of the ordinance. A clear conflict of interest.

The court obviously agreed and HSUS failed to get its amicus brief admitted, despite having tried TWICE on 2 separate motions, to get it admitted. HSUS routinely does this because they keep a brief bank of every document they get filed, and try to use them in other areas over time. [This type of behavior by HSUS is typical!] and in my opinion, it is unethical as well in this case.

How much money, time, and savings had to be SPENT —JUST because of HSUS!!!

What is wrong with the Ordinance? Here are some examples…and this is not all of them!

1. It was admitted it would be enforced “selectively” [legally meaning, arbitrarily]

2. No animal may be sold or given away without written permission of MAS [this is absurd]

3. Unaltered dog can’t be taken on vacation or left with pet sitter without notifying MAS [this is unconstitutional]

4. All dogs must be RE-VACCINATED for Rabies EACH time they are removed from a boarding kennel! [absurd and attempts to regulate vet procedures, serves no govt interest]

5. Attempts to regulate the practice of veterinary medicine and the ‘cruelty’ sections are in conflict with the scheme of animal cruelty at existing section of law.

6. Ordinance provides that unaltered dogs are more aggressive than altered dogs. [A longstanding tenet of ARs, that altering solves everything except responsibility and training]

7. Definition of an “at-risk” dog includes one which would “chase a person, menace a person, display “aggressive” behavior, cause physical injury to any domestic pet (including mice, rat, rabbit), or livestock ; and an “unaltered” dog which is not licensed, is also categorized as “at risk” [another insane provision that is wacked, as the altered roaming dog is ignored!]

8. Ordinance defines “attack” as something that causes “a scratch, abrasion, bruising or on a domestic pet or livestock, that causes death or injury.” [No measurable standards given] (Another ridiculous, but attempted try by HSUS to get rid of dogs/cats)

9. Ordinance defines “cruelty” as, among other things, “failing to provide adequate food/water, failing to detect the need for or withholding vet care, creating or allowing UNHEALTHFUL living conditions, “striking” an animal, “infliction of suffering” through the use of “objects” and FAILING TO PROVIDE “HEALTH RELATED GROOMING.” [HSUS has already helped conduct raids using these terms and put forth other ordinances with similar terms, those will also require lawsuits in court]

10. Ordinance defines “nuisance” as any act of an animal that IRRITATES OR PERTURBS ANYONE, or any act of an ANIMAL’S OWNER THAT IRRITATES OR PERTURBS ANYONE, Nuisance can be subject to criminal punishment, including jail. [So ludicrous we can't even believe they had the nerve to write it down!]

11. Ordinance defines ‘potentially dangerous dog’ as any which would bite, scratch, or bruise anyone (among other items listed) [another ridiculous provision, purposely drafted like this to take out any dog or cat]

12. Ordinance “restraint” requires every dog off premises of the owner to altered dogs only for “off leash” areas, with no leash longer than 4 feet. [In other words, show dogs that are intact can't go to off leash areas?]

13. Ordinance licensing requirements authorizes MAS to designate anyone to determine +inspect dogs re spay/neuter, notwithstanding that such altering certificate has been issued by licensed vet. [this is purposely set up for harassment reasons so quasi legal steps can be taken by private people against dogs/cats]

14. Ordinance requires owner of unaltered dog to notify director of MAS every time the unaltered dog was placed in a kennel, taken on vacation, or left with a pet sitter and also prohibits certain sales of unaltered dogs in a manner that affects individuals OUTSIDE of affected county. [ More insanity, plus there is no jurisdiction for this if in another county]

15. Ordinance requires all unaltered dogs be kept in an enclosure that is approved by the Director of MAS in writing.

16. Ordinance requires any animal removed from a kennel or cattery must be re-vaccinated against rabies AND re-licensed by MAS EACH time it is removed… [Ridiculous]

17. Ordinance requires written permission from MAS for any person to sell any animal, and for any person to purchase an unaltered “potentially” dangerous dog.

18. Prohibits owner of 1/2 acre or less of residential property from quartering more than 3 dogs outdoors on his property…

19. Impounded dog or cat shall not be released until microchip placed and unaltered dog MUST be altered BEFORE being released. [Meaning if someone let your show dog out accidentally, you just lost your show dog!]

20. Any animal which has scratched a person must be quarantined for 10 days. [Good way to get rid of cats, as HSUS does not advocate to save cats, saying they spread vermin and are predators to wildlife]

21. Anyone who sells or transfers ownership of animals MUST notify MAS w/in 10 days, EVEN if sold or transferred outside the jurisdiction.

22. One section appears to prohibit restraining a dog by tether or chain from 8am-6pm and during any 8hr period for more than 1 hour. [Recall Tammy Grimes stealing another's tethered dog and being found guilty, but many ARs have now passed anti-tethering laws with HSUS advocating for it?]

23. Ordinance prohibits mutilation of any animal, dead or alive/prohibits the dissection of animals in the educational setting at all levels.[No definition for term mutilate]

24. Ordinance provides that all pet shops must clean/disinfect all cages every day and prescribes a SPECIFIC feeding schedule applicable to ALL animals. [Surprisingly HSUS did not attempt to outlaw commercial kennel dogs]

These are just some of the ridiculous provisions. Yet the MAS and council insist that the ordinance is worthy. And that’s because the HSUS is telling them to keep the ordinance. All of these provisions are purposely devised and drafted in the manner shown, so that owners will be fearful at every turn that they might be accused of something. The rules are either extra broad, covering far too much, or frightfully overly specific, and amounting to either privacy concerns, or outright illegality.

The question is this: WHY should pet owners anywhere have to be facing “laws” like this,

JUST BECAUSE HSUS can afford to keep doing it?

Anyone in their right mind can see this ordinance is an outrage.

Yet that is what HSUS is doing behind the scenes. Outwardly HSUS keeps saying it wants to save animals. NOT. HSUS’ only interest is its OWN interest–animal extremist.

Not until people and dog owners that are outspoken and not afraid to tell everyone they can, gets the word out—can this be stopped!
i

The *PERCEIVED* credibility of HSUS needs to be destroyed. Prior to becoming a huge AR conglomerate, HSUS did very little. ONLY after merging or swallowing up other groups, did HSUS take the $$$ and start enacting more legislation, more TV media, more and more marketing to young people and children, and now churches……..

If the ordinance provisions do not get you mad, then you have bought into the HSUS method of misleading the public.

http://www.asabirds.org/docs/ARvsAW.pdf

is an excellent summary of animal rights vs animal welfare. HSUS is NOT animal welfare, but they say they are. All one has to do is look at the above lawsuit concerns. That alone is enough to prove the real agenda of HSUS. Actions speak louder than words?

We can’t argue with anyone who believes this junk that HSUS pushes, is either worthy or realistic. It’s downright anti-pet, animal extremist agenda cloaked in the whitewash of misleading media propaganda. And we ain’t buying into it!

From http://petdefense.wordpress.com/

More from the endangered owner

Twelve Step Plan To a No Animal Nation: The Animal Rights Agenda

When PETA first came on the scene in the 1980's, the general concensus was "what a bunch of fruitcakes!" The overwhelming majority of animal owners laughed at their nude antics and talk of "Animal Liberation" and "Animal Rights"...INSANE! We ignored them.

We continued on our merry way, going about our day-to-day routines and enjoying our animals and animal related activities. Hunters hunted, fishermen fished, pet owners bought/sold/bred/showed/trained...great advances were made in human and animal medicine.

No worries. Life was good. For now. The ARs told "us" of their plan, their goals...we didn't listen. A nation as great as ours could NEVER allow such lunacy to prevail, right??? NO animal use?, c'mon! NO pets?, "no way!" If only more of us had paid attention to what they were saying...changing the language and playing on human emotion...using "us" to push their socialist agenda : "Guardianship" instead of 'ownership', "don't breed or buy while shelter animals die!", "animals have a right NOT to be eaten!"... Laws were passed while we slept, making it more and more difficult/expensive to own pets...laws were passed villifying hunters...scientists were (and continue to be) ATTACKED for doing important animal medical testing, corporations such as KFC, have been the victims of media- terrorist- tactics aimed at destroying honest businesses...Honestly, if anyone reading this STILL thinks groups like the HSUS are in it for the welfare of the animals, you need a labotomy.

The HSUS is in it FOR THE MONEY. The HSUS and the rest of their ilk are human-haters when you get right down to it. The laws they propose ARE NOT for the benefit of the animals, they are proposed solely for the purpose of promoting their NO ANIMAL USE / VEGAN AGENDA. So, unless, dear readers, you want to become a nation of tofu burgers on the grill on the 4th of July, unless you DO NOT want a choice as to where your next purebred dog comes from...it is way past time to wake up and JOIN THE CRUSADE.

The following 12 Step plan was published in 1987, when the concept of Animal Rights was as foreign as fuzz on a frog's ass. Look at this list VERY CAREFULLY. ( Over the coming weeks, The Endangered Owner will look at each of these steps individually, so check back.)Each and every item on that list is being attacked by PETA and the HSUS. And for all of you pet owners out there that STILL do not believe the Animal Rightists want to end ALL PET BREEDING, read item number 10.

From

“Politics of Animal Liberation”

by Kim Bartlett,

published in ANIMAL AGENDA,

November 1987

1. Abolish by law all animal research

2. Outlaw the use of animals for cosmetic and product testing, classroom demonstration and in weapons development

3. Vegetarian meals should be made available at all public institutions, including schools

4. Eliminate all animal agriculture

5. No herbicides, pesticides or other agricultural chemicals. Outlaw predator control.

6. Transfer enforcement of animal welfare legislation away from the Department of Agriculture

7. Eliminate fur ranching and the use of furs.

8. Prohibit hunting, trapping and fishing.

9. End the international trade in wildlife goods

10. Stop any further breeding of companion animals, including purebred dogs and cats. Spaying and neutering should be subsidized by state and municipal governments. Abolish commerce in animals for the pet trade.

11. End the use of animals in entertainment and sports.

12. Prohibit the genetic manipulation of species.

NOTE: This was written in 1987, long before genetic engineering and cloning.
In this context, “genetic manipulation” means selective breeding”

**Cross-posting notice**

Cross posting is highly encouraged and welcomed.

Post this message anyplace that it will be read by those folks still unaware of what is happening to our rights and to our culture.

http://endangeredowner.blogspot.com/

Black Wednesday For Dog Owners

If peta and other AR groups have their way,
millions of U.S. dogs will be leaving for more canine friendly living.

If peta gets it's way the dog will soon become an extinct species in the U.S

If you care about dogs and love your pooch and don't want to hear your grandchildren ask, "What's a dog?" please read this.

Animal Rights Wins In Dallas, California, Pennsylvania

by JOHN YATES

American Sporting Dog Alliance

http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org

asda@csonline.net

Wednesday was a black day for dog owners all across America, as
animal rights extremists posted legislative victories in Dallas,
California and Pennsylvania.

Dog owner advocacy groups fought hard in all three contests and had
clear majority support, but animal rights groups such as People for
the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Humane Society of the United
States cashed in political chips with elected officials.

PETA and HSUS have been infiltrating local and state advisory boards
for many years, backed by a war chest exceeding $150 million,
hundreds of paid employees and thousands of volunteers.

Apathy remains th greatest problem faced by dog ownership advocacy
groups.

Wednesday's votes also highlighted what is rapidly becoming a
partisan division on animal rights legislation. In general, almost
all Republicans voted against the legislation, and almost all
Democrats voted for the bills. The Democratic Party appears to be
lining up behind the animal rights agenda in support of its
presumptive presidential candidate, Barrack Obama. Obama has
expressed strong support for animal rights.

Here is a summary of the four issues decided this week:

In Dallas, City Council voted 10-3 to pass an animal control
ordinance requiring mandatory pet sterilization, expensive permits to
own intact dogs and cats, mandatory microchipping and pet ownership
limits. The ordinance also bans tethering of dogs and imposes strict
requirements for keeping dogs outdoors. Home inspections also are
authorized.

In California, the Senate Local Government Committee voted 3-2 to
approve AB1634, which now will be sent to the Senate Appropriations
Committee. If this committee approves, it will be sent to the
legislature for a vote. This bill allows any person to act as a
vigilante and report any dog owner for an unsubstantiated violation
of any animal law. If any animal control officer agrees, the accused
person will have a choice between paying a fine or sterilizing the
animal. People who are accused of anything have no right to defend
themselves or to appeal. An accusation is automatic guilt.

In Pennsylvania, the House Rules Committee voted Tuesday to approve
HB2532, which is a de facto ban on tail docking, dewclaw removal and
ear cropping. In the absence of proof that the procedure was
performed by a veterinarian, the mere possession of a dog that has
had one of those three procedures subjects an owner to a criminal
citation for animal cruelty. This bill would destroy many rescue
operations, dog shows, competitive events and field trials in
Pennsylvania and result in the deaths of thousands of dogs. This bill
now goes to the full House for a vote, and then to the Senate.

Also in Pennsylvania, the House Agriculture Committee approved
amendments to the state dog and kennel law that fall short of changes
that were promised to dog owner advocacy groups. The actual text of
this legislation was not available at this writing, and a follow-up
report will be issued when the revised legislation is available. This
bill now goes to the full House for a vote, and then to the Senate.

Please see below for more detailed descriptions of all four issues.

Dog ownership advocates clearly outnumbered animal rights
sympathizers in public hearings on all four pieces of legislation, as
well as in written comments, emails and phone calls received by
elected officials. However, many of those officials chose to ignore
our voices, and that is doubly true of the Democrats. We are not
saying this to be partisan, as many of our officers and members are
loyal Democrats. We simply are stating a fact. Democrats voted
against animal owners this week by a shocking margin, and we urge dog
owners who are registered with this party to work to reverse this
policy.

Advocates of dog owners' rights also were hurt by the apathy of many
people who support us, but who did little or nothing to voice that
support to elected officials. At the Senate hearing in California,
for example, only about 10 people showed up. In Dallas, about 200 dog
ownership advocates attended the hearing, but that is a tiny
percentage of the estimated 300,000 pet owners in the city.
Attendance at the two Pennsylvania hearings was described as moderate.

Apathy by the large but silent majority of dog owners is a major
component of the animal rights strategy. While we outnumber them 100-
to-one, most of us don't get involved. In contrast, animal rights
groups rely on an almost religious fanaticism by their supporters to
gain a high percentage of participation.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges every dog owner in America
to join one or more of the several fine organizations that are
fighting for your rights. Each of these organizations has its own
niche, but all are excellent and deserve your support.

We welcome your membership and hope you will participate fully in our
programs. Please visit us online at
http://www.americansportingsdogalliance.org.

Please stand up and be counted now!

We also ask all dog owners who belong to field trial clubs,
sportsmen's organizations, show specialty clubs, breed clubs and
event clubs to urge those organizations to take an active political
role to defeat animal rights legislation.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance also is urging dog owners to
boycott all dog events in the City of Dallas for their own safety.
Under the terms of the ordinance, even a visitor to the city is
subject to citations, fines and dog confiscations. It is known that
PETA plans a protest at a July dog show in Dallas, and we expect them
to report show dog owners for alleged violations of the ordinance.
Because the Dallas animal commission is dominated by PETA members, we
expect that there will be a move to raid this dog show. All
professional handlers would be in violation of the possession limit
of six dogs, and none of the dogs are expected to have a required
Dallas breeding or intact permit.

If the Pennsylvania and California legislation becomes law, it will
not be safe for anyone to attend a field trial, dog show or
performance event in those states, or even to visit, pass through or
take a hunting trip there.

We urge all clubs to cancel or move planned events in Dallas now, and
also in Pennsylvania and California if their legislation is signed
into law. We believe that clubs have an ethical obligation to protect
the safety of participants and their dogs.

Continued apathy and non-involvement will doom dog ownership in
America, as well as hunting, field trials and other dog events. We
can't do it without you.

Here are the highlights of the four pieces of legislation that were
voted on this week.

California

We support the first part of AB1634, which calls for fines for dogs
that are allowed to roam and mandates sterilization after the third
offense.

However, the second part of the legislation violates basic
constitutional rights and human decency.

Here are the provisions of the second part of the legislation
(Italics are direct quotes, and words that are not italicized are our
comments):

· "The owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog that is the
subject of a complaint may be cited and pay a civil penalty as
provided in this section. This civil penalty shall be in addition to
any fine, fee, or penalty imposed under any other provision of law or
local ordinance." In the first sentence, the committee
substituted "may" for "shall," which appears to leave the issuance of
a citation up to the discretion of an animal control officer.
However, the basis for this decision is not defined.

· "The owner of the dog shall pay the civil penalty to the
local animal control agency within 30 business days of the citation.
The local animal control agency shall waive the civil penalty if,
within 14 business days of the citation, the owner of the dog
presents written proof from a licensed veterinarian that the dog was
spayed or neutered." There is no provision for a dog owner to defend
him/herself in court or at a hearing, and no appeal is allowed. If
you are accused, you are guilty. Period. This is a violation of
constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection under
the law.

· " 'Complaint' means an oral or written complaint to a local
animal control agency that alleges that the dog or the owner of the
dog has violated this division, any other provision of state law that
relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance. `Complaint'
also means the observation by an employee or officer of a local
animal control agency of behavior by a dog or the owner of a dog that
violates this division, any other provision of state law that relates
to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance." An example of what
this means is that a hunting or field trial dog that is in excellent
health and conditioned for performance could result in a complaint of
animal cruelty if anyone believes the dog looks thin.

· " `Local animal control agency' means any city or county
animal control agency or other entity responsible for enforcing
animal-related laws or local animal control ordinances." This
includes Humane Societies and other animal welfare organizations
empowered to enforce animal cruelty or other dog laws. Many members
of these groups support a radical animal rights agenda.

The Senate Local Government Committee approved this legislation by a
party-line 3-2 vote Wednesday, with Democrats in the majority. It now
goes to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, and then to the
Senate floor for a final vote.

Please contact members of the Appropriations Committee immediately to
voice opposition to the second half of this bill, and also individual
senators.

This link gives contact information for committee members:
http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/sen/committee/STAN...PPROP/_home1/PROF
ILE.HTM. The committee meets on Monday.

This link gives contact information for all senators:
http://www.senate.ca.gov/~newsen/senators/senators.htp. While Sen.
Michael Machado voted for this bill on Wednesday, he expressed many
concerns and might be convinced to change his vote.

Dallas

Here is a summary of the dog ordinance passed Wednesday by the Dallas
City Council by a 10-3 vote. The ordinance:

· Creates a permit for a dog or cat used for breeding or
competition. The cost of the permit is $70 annually for each animal,
plus the regular license fee of $30. There is no grace period or
exclusion provided for new residents or people who are visiting
Dallas, including participants in dog shows or other events. Visitors
can be cited, and we expect that they will be cited.

· Requires all other dogs or cats to be spayed or neutered.

· Limits a single household to a total of six cats and/or
dogs. People owning more than a half-acre of land would be allowed
eight. People who currently own a greater number of animals could
apply to the city to be allowed to keep their animals without
penalty, but they would not be allowed to buy a dog or breed a litter
of puppies until their number of dogs drops below the limit. The
ordinance applies to anyone who "harbors" more than six dogs, which
includes many visitors and participants in dog shows and other
events. Almost all professional handlers would be in this category,
as well as many owner/handlers.

· Subjects anyone who harbors a group of dogs that exceeds the
limits to unannounced inspections. This would include participants in
dog shows or other events.

· Mandates microchipping of all dogs and cats, including those
of visitors.

· Prohibits tethering of unsupervised dogs to trees or poles
except "for a period no longer than necessary for the owner to
complete a temporary task."

Forces owners to provide at least 150 square feet of space and a
building or designed doghouse for a dog confined outdoors.
And provides for confiscation of allegedly dangerous dogs, and other
penalties.

Please contact us at asda@csonlinenet if you would like to
participate in legal action or boycotts related to the Dallas
ordinance.

Pennsylvania

Dog owners in Pennsylvania were beset by two pieces of bad
legislation this week.

HB 2525 regulates a million dog owners and owners of 2,700 licensed
kennels in the state. It passed the House Agriculture Committee by a
17-12 vote Wednesday. All but one Republican (Rep. K. Boback) voted
against the bill, and all Democrats (the majority party) voted in
favor of it.

It appears that the final bill reflects some of the promises made to
dog ownership advocacy groups during the past several months of
negotiations, but that the Democrats have reneged on other promises.

Some dog owners groups have withdrawn their opposition to this
legislation, but the American Sporting Dog Alliance continues to
oppose it in its present form. While we support changes that affect
commercial breeders, these represent only a small part of HB 2525.
The rest of the bill has serious impacts on all dog and kennel
owners. The text of several amendments has not been published thus
far We will issue a full report on this legislation in the next
couple of days.

The other legislation is HB 2532, which provides what amounts to be a
de facto partial or complete ban on tail docking, ear cropping and
dewclaw removal by anyone except a licensed veterinarian. Although
most other dog owners' organizations have not taken a clear public
stance on this bill, the American Sporting Dog Alliance categorically
opposes it.

HB 2532 passed the House Judiciary Committee by a 28-1 vote Tuesday,
with only Republican Rep. T. Creighton voting "no."

The bill allows owners to dock the tails of puppies until they pass
three days of age, and to remove dewclaws during the first five days.
However, the burden of proof is placed on a dog's owner to prove that
this work was done legally before the age limits, or by a
veterinarian. It would be difficult for most dog owners to prove
this, and a large majority would not be able to prove it. The simple
possession of a dog with a docked tail or a lack of dewclaws would be
considered evidence of an animal cruelty violation, if the owner
cannot prove his/her innocence.

The bill continues a total ban against ear cropping, except by a
veterinarian, and anyone who is found in possession of a dog with
cropped ears is automatically guilty of criminal animal cruelty in
the absence of proof.

For all of these procedures, HB 2532 struck out a provision that
would have exempted dogs if their owners filed an affidavit with a
county treasurer that the work was done before the bill is passed.

That means a large majority of owners of many of the most popular
breeds will have no way of proving that they have complied with the
law. These procedures were done legally in the past on many dogs, or
legally by breeders in other states. In many cases, a dog owner has
no idea who performed these procedures. Thus, they would be guilty of
criminal animal cruelty for noncompliance.

This legislation will destroy rescue work for many breeds if it is
signed into law. Most dogs that are assisted by rescue groups, animal
shelters and private individuals either come from unknown sources, or
do not come with medical records. There will be no choice except to
euthanize these dogs, since it will be impossible to establish their
legality.

This legislation also will have a severe impact on people who live in
other states. On one level, Pennsylvanians will no longer be able to
buy puppies from dozens of breeds from nonresident breeders who
perform these procedures legally in their home states.

On another level, Pennsylvania professional trainers and handlers
will not be able to accept many dogs from out-of-state customers,
because proof will not be available.

But a larger impact will be on thousands of people who own dogs and
come to Pennsylvania for a vacation, to hunt, or to compete in field
trials, dog shows and other events. Anyone who brings a dog with a
docked tail, missing dewclaws or cropped ears into Pennsylvania is
subject to arrest for criminal animal cruelty charges.

This will affect many very popular breeds of dogs, such as almost all
Continental breeds of pointing dogs, flushing dogs, terriers and many
working dogs, such as rottweilers and doberman pinchers.

The bill now moves to the full House for a vote. Please contact your
own legislator and as many others as possible to express opposition
to this legislation. Contact information can be found at:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/..._information/repr
esentatives_alpha.cfm.

Here is a link to the text of the legislation:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?
txtType=HTM&sessYr=2007&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billT yp=B&billNbr=2532&pn
=4030

The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, hobby breeders
and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for
hunting. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights
of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships
between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American
society and life. Please visit us on the web at
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. Our email is
ASDA@csonline.net. Complete directions to join by mail or online are
found at the bottom left of each page.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we
can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your
membership, participation and support are truly essential to the
success of our mission. We are funded solely by the donations of our
members, and maintain strict independence.

PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS


Quote of the day

Some things we need to come to terms with:

Peta isn't going away anytime soon

Peta believes itself to be a world authority on all animal related subjects

Peta is unethical
Peta is above the law

Peta is hypocritical

Peta is contradictory

Peta is ubiquitous

Peta is narcissistic
Peta is irrational

Peta is not welfare friendly

Peta is not people friendly

Peta will continue to kill domestic pets and other animals

Peta will continue to criticise and condemn those who genuinely care for animals

Peta will continue to exploit animals for its own benefit

Peta will continue to exploit and manipulate celebrities for its own benefit

Peta will continue to publish disgracefully and grossly offensive advertising

Peta will use any all animal related news items to push its sick agenda
Peta will continue to push veganism

Peta will continue to use misinformation, gross exaggeration, and downright lies to push its warped agenda

Peta will continue to find any excuse to criticise and discredit anyone in the public eye

Peta will continue to exploit people's emotions

Peta will continue to take money from hard up pensioners and children

Peta's website is not user friendly, but at least they take responsibility for its content

Peta wants the next generation of children to sit on Grandpa's knee and ask, "What's a dog? Grandpa."

Quote of the day

The smallest form of life, even an ant or a clam, is equal to a human
being.
-Ingrid Newkirk, PETA